Mutumwa Mawere

We are all too familiar with the argument that colonialism retarded, distorted, and undermined an orderly development of Africa.

What is colonialism and how relevant was it to the creation of the outcomes we see today in Africa where the majority of the countries are dependent on aid than on internally generated solutions and financing?

Colonialism can be defined as a policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies.

People of European heritage are largely blamed for the underdevelopment of Africa on the grounds that they explored, conquered, settled, and exploited large parts of Africa with the purpose of economic exploitation of the colony's natural resources, creation of new markets for the colonizer, extension of the colonizer's way of life beyond its natural borders.

If colonialism was a state driven policy agenda, then one would expect the settlers to have been merely agents of their mother countries with the benefits from colonial projects being transmitted to the mother nation through transparent and structured instruments.

Equally, the colonial model would have required a financing architecture that would allow for the transmission of investment capital by the mother nation to the colonies. More importantly, one would expect to get budget appropriations through the colonial office to sustain the colonial way of life.

What do we make of the slogan often made, for example, in Zimbabwe that: "Zimbabwe will never be a colony again"? Is it the case that Zimbabwe was ever a colony whose policies and programs were dictated by the colonial office? Who was responsible for prosecuting the colonial agenda?

In the post-colonial era, we have witnessed the "brain drain" of a similar nature to the colonial experience where individuals like Rhodes, Rudd, and many others chose to pursue their careers in Africa but unlike Africans in the diaspora, they understood that they had to create a home from home and make it work wherever they were located.

The Europeans in the diaspora were motivated by personal interests and it would be wrong to suggest that they were programmed by the colonial office to do what they did.

There is no evidence to support the argument that men like Rhodes were not self motivated but agents of a grand Imperial strategy.

We must accept that colonialism was driven by individuals in as much as the "brain drain" is largely driven by individuals concerned about their own future.

Notwithstanding, it is not unusual to hear that most countries that lose skills because of the "brain drain" can still boast that they are in control of the people outside their borders.

We often hear statements like: "Our people are doing well in Europe" as if the people were externalised as part of a strategy when in truth and fact the movement of people historically has been motivated by personal interests.

If colonialism was driven by individuals it is important that we invest in knowing more about the individuals who played a critical role in shaping our present circumstances as the focus on the colonial nations may lead to policy distortions and counterproductive strategies.

Rhodes, for instance, played a more critical role in shaping the corporate civilization of Southern Africa than the colonial administration. The history of Southern Africa would be incomplete without mentioning the role of people like Rhodes and his comrades.

Rhodes was an original thinker and there is no evidence to suggest that he was in any way a clone of the colonial office.

He accumulated wealth in his personal name with no obligations to transfer the acquired wealth to the mother country.

The individuals who dominated the so-called colonial project became extremely wealthy and some of them chose to retire in affluence in Europe.

The colonial model had to be structured as a self-sustaining model underpinned by a constitutional order that resembled the one obtaining in the mother country with the exception that natives who were generally regarded as "barbarians" were excluded from benefiting from the project.

Although Rhodes was the principal driver, he was smart enough to attract a team of pan-European individuals motivated by a desire to make personal fortunes to assist in the execution of his grand plans for the new territories.

Such individuals included Mr. Alfred Beit (1853-1906) was the son of a well-to-do merchant of German heritage.

He was born and brought up in Hamburg, Germany. He was an unpromising scholar and after some commercial education at home began his career as an apprentice to Jules Porgės and Cie, an Amsterdam diamond firm where he developed a talent for examining stones.

Beit made his first fortune in property speculation. His first major break was when he bought a piece of land that he used to build twelve corrugated iron sheds for offices and rented 11 out monthly while keeping one for himself. Twelve years later he sold the land for a considerable profit.

He was sent to Kimberly by his company in 1875 to buy diamonds following the diamond strike at Kimberley. It was in Kimberley that he came into contact with Rhodes who was involved in the Kimberley Central Company.

Beit was not born British but was a great admirer of English civilization. History records that he was captivated by Rhodes's talk of "big schemes".

Rhodes was a dreamer but unlike many in our generation, he was ahead of his time because he understood the power of consolidation and using personal relationships to advance the cause.

In 1889, Rhodes and Beit effected the amalgamation of various diamond interests in the De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited. Beit was the financier and Rhodes the visionary.

History records that were it not for the capital and enterprise of Beit, the deep-level mines in the Witwatersrand district of the Transvaal would not have opened. He had a big stake in the principal company, Rand Mines Limited.

The centre of Beit's financial operations was voluntarily transferred to London through the facilitation of the firm, Wernher, Beit and Co. that then became the leading house in the dealings in South African mines.

It was important to get a London address in order to access capital markets. The colonial project could not succeed without access to private capital rather than state resources as is the case in post-colonial Africa where aid is supreme.

The rapid progress made in developing the diamond and gold mines made Beit a man of enormous wealth and he used his funds to support Rhodes' Pan African strategy.

Beit was one of the original directors of the British South Africa Company and was included in the censure passed by the House of Commons Commission of Inquiry on the Jameson Raid of 1896. Had the British government been the instigator of Rhodes' schemes, there would no doubt have been a need for a Commission of Inquiry.

Beit was subsequently appointed one of Rhodes' trustees. He became a life-governor of De Beers and also a director of numerous companies including Rand Mines, Rhodesia Railways and the Beira Railway Company.

He was one of the South African millionaires of German birth confirming that the colonial project was inclusive of all who believed in advancing their self interests.

He identified with the broad strategy that informed Rhodes' choices and invested heavily in philanthropy and infrastructure.

In 1888, Beit moved to London where he felt he was able to better manage his financial empire and support Rhodes' grand scheme.

London has remained a critical player in bridging the capital gaps that exist in the world and in providing a safe environment for people with resources.

The choice of London was deliberate because of the values, beliefs and principles that Britain subscribed to.

Without the respect of the rule of law, property and human rights, it would have been unthinkable for a German born millionaire to have confidence that his future was secure.

The lesson we draw from the above is that the colonial project was driven by men of ambition and soldiers of fortune than by the designs of the Imperial administration.

The success or failure of the project was inextricably linked to the actions of the settlers who had no choice but to think out of the box using the Imperial Flag as an umbrella.

The colonial project called for the creativity and innovation of the settlers on the ground who had no choice but to invest in the change they wanted to see.

The history of Southern Africa would not be complete without incorporating the role of people like Beit.

Yes, he made a fortune in Africa but we have not cared to examine what would have happened if he had not visited Africa or believed in its promise to make him rich.

Can we consider Beit to be more African than the many who pontificate about the ills of colonialism without understanding its true nature, content and context?